Apple: DisplaySearch Picks Apart Semantics of the ‘Retina Display’

By Tiernan Ray

Paul Gagnon with research firm DisplaySearch this afternoon offers some thoughts on the the “Retina Display” technology unveiled by Apple (AAPL) yesterday in announcing its latest version of the iPad.

Gagnon takes a subtle jab at the technology, noting that the the display has a lower pixel density — 265 pixels per inch — than the iPhone — 326 pixels per inch — writes that the term Retina Display is “a marketing term with no specific definition,” and therefore Apple is “able to use it how it wants.”

Anther term he thinks is experiencing semantic drift is the term “IPS,” referring to the iPad camera. That stands for “in-plane switching,” a way of making images better when viewing a display at oblique angles. “However, it is likely that some of its suppliers are using fringe field switching (FFS) rather than IPS.

Gagnon, who speculates that Sharp (6753JP), Samsung Electronics (005930KS) and LG Display (LPL) are all suppliers, says Sharp has has trouble making the displays in volume, so Samsung and LG seem to be in the pole position.

Gagnon also notes this fascinating tidbit: because of the doubling of pixel density, and the resultant smaller “aperture ratio,”
“Our research indicates that the iPad 3 panel has at least twice as many LEDs than the iPad 2, which had 36.”

Add a Comment

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comment

There are 3 comments

MARCH 8, 2012 3:41 P.M.

mark wrote:

Gagnon didn't do his homework. Does one hold the iPad as close to one's face as an iPhone? I hope not. Steve Jobs defined retina display in terms of the ability to see individual pixels on the screen. Since the iPad is held further from one's face than an iPhone, it needs a lower pixel density to achieve that state. I believe 265 is more than enough. See this post about retina display - http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and-hidpi-doing-the-math/

MARCH 8, 2012 5:29 P.M.

cordjam wrote:

Wasn't the lower pixel density explained by the fact that an iPad is held further away from the eye than the iPhone?

MARCH 8, 2012 9:44 P.M.

Surprised wrote:

You're not covering this piece (and the analysis...) from the WSJ on the high COGS of the new iPad.
After all -- we all went nuts looking at Amazon's costs and loss of profit potential on fire ;)

* TECHNOLOGY
* Updated March 8, 2012, 6:55 p.m. ET

Firm Estimates New iPad Costs Apple More
BY DON CLARK

Apple Inc. may be giving up a bit of profit margin because of the sophisticated display and other features in the new iPad, a research firm found in a preliminary cost analysis of components in the new tablet.

UBM TechInsights on Thursday estimated a cost to Apple of about $310 for the components in a version of the new iPad that offers 4G wireless connections and 16 gigabytes of data storage, ...

About Tech Trader Daily

Tech Trader Daily is a blog on technology investing written by Barron’s veteran Tiernan Ray. The blog provides news, analysis and original reporting on events important to investors in software, hardware, the Internet, telecommunications and related fields. Comments and tips can be sent to: techtraderdaily@barrons.com.